2014 (7) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said pumps were being manufactured by the appellants in the brand name 'Prince'. Investigation conducted by the Revenue revealed that said brand name 'Prince' was registered under the name of M/s. Kalsi Metals Works for the same Centrifugal pumps and stands transferred by them to M/s. Kalsi Engineers. By entertaining a view that inasmuch as the appellant has used the brand name of other persons, they were not entitled to benefit of small scale exemption and benefit in terms of Notification No. 8/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 10-3-2003, raising demand for the period of 1-3-2002 to 12-9-2002. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Bhalla Enterprises reported as [2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.)]. He also refers to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vetcare Organics P. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2004 (174) E.L.T. 337 (Tri. - Bang.)]. 4. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue submits that in the absence of any dispute to the effect that the appellant was using somebody else's brand name, legal issue of non-availability of Notification No. 8/2001-C.E. does not call for any dispute. As regards the raising and confirmation of demand, she submits that the same stands raised within the period of limitation provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. As such, the appellants contention that there was no intent....